*::I would have liked to have had Yamla’s feedback but agree that it is not ”required”. I am okay with Adamantine’s response since the purpose of my question was mainly to make sure that they are aware that a topic-ban from (say) ‘caste and social groups’ would cover not only articles about castes themselves or edits about a subject’s caste but also topics such as “caste politics”. If unblocked, please keep this in mind and ask an admin if in doubt. I will leave it to Bish to make the final call. Cheers. [[User:Abecedare|Abecedare]] ([[User talk:Abecedare|talk]]) 16:31, 19 November 2025 (UTC)
*::I would have liked to have had Yamla’s feedback but agree that it is not ”required”. I am okay with Adamantine’s response since the purpose of my question was mainly to make sure that they are aware that a topic-ban from (say) ‘caste and social groups’ would cover not only articles about castes themselves or edits about a subject’s caste but also topics such as “caste politics”. If unblocked, please keep this in mind and ask an admin if in doubt. I will leave it to Bish to make the final call. Cheers. [[User:Abecedare|Abecedare]] ([[User talk:Abecedare|talk]]) 16:31, 19 November 2025 (UTC)
*:::For the record, no objections (though it does appear they violated that narrower topic ban). –[[User:Yamla|Yamla]] ([[User talk:Yamla|talk]]) 12:15, 26 November 2025 (UTC)
*:::For the record, no objections (though it does appear they violated that narrower topic ban). –[[User:Yamla|Yamla]] ([[User talk:Yamla|talk]]) 12:15, 26 November 2025 (UTC)
*::::This isn’t really a topic violation, as I didn’t edit any details about or related to caste in the article. The title of the news article happens to mention caste, but I didn’t use it to add any caste-related details.” [[User:Adamantine123|Adamantine123]] ([[User talk:Adamantine123#top|talk]]) 14:04, 26 November 2025 (UTC)
*::::This isn’t really a topic violation, as I didn’t edit any details about or related to caste in the article. The title of the news article happens to mention caste, but I didn’t use it to add any caste-related details.” [[User:Adamantine123|Adamantine123]] ([[User talk:Adamantine123#top|talk]]) 14:04, 26 November 2025 (UTC)
==Unblocked with conditions==
==Unblocked with conditions==
.jpg)
This user’s unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).
Adamantine123 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I was blocked around 10 months ago for casting aspersions related to caste, which was obviously disruptive and contrary to the collaborative spirit of Wikipedia. I deeply regret my actions, and I sincerely apologise to the concerned editor and to the Wikipedia community as a whole for such unacceptable behaviour. Needless to say, such behaviour will not be repeated by me. I have been a prolific editor in the field of Indian politics for multiple years, and I would like to resume editing in that area while staying away from caste-related editing, where I made those troubling comments. So please topic-ban me from the WP:GS/CASTE area if deemed appropriate. But I request to be allowed to resume editing in other areas where I can demonstrate my constructive contributions and work to regain the trust of the community.
Decline reason:
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Hi, @Yamla:. Don’t you think unblocking only on condition of a T-ban from the entire huge SA area is a little draconian? It comprises everything the user is interested in, so would be pretty much functionally equivalent to a siteblock. It seems to me a T-ban from caste and social groups would suffice here, considering Adamantine’s previous good work in the area, and considering that they have no other block. I’m also thinking of the comments from ArbCom when they subsumed the IPA discretionary sanctions under the SA contentious topics, under Breadth of topic bans: “Administrators are reminded that, when possible, topic bans should only be as broad as necessary to stop disruption”. Pinging also the blocking admin, @Tamzin:. Bishonen | tålk 10:52, 18 November 2025 (UTC).
- I think I was the one who proposed that wording to ArbCom, so I definitely agree that a full SA TBAN is presumptively overbroad if a conditional unblock is to be done. To me the bigger question is whether the circumstances do in fact warrant a conditional unblock. The way I see it, casteism falls under Wikipedia:Hate is disruptive like any other -ism or -phobia. That essay, which I wrote most of but which is cited by enough others that I’m comfortable citing my own words here, advocates being fairly charitable on unblocks if the user atones:
People change. People mature. People meet a person from Group X for the first time and learn they’re not all evil. People wind up on the receiving end of discrimination for the first time and learn how it feels. People read a great book or have a spiritual epiphany. … [S]omeone who clearly disavows past hateful views, even really nasty hateful views, should usually be given the benefit of the doubt.
Has there been a change of heart here? My impression is that the main change Adamantine has experienced since I blocked them is that they no longer are content with being blocked for the views they expressed. To further quote HID,A topic ban may help with content disruption, but will not make editors from the affected group comfortable around the editor in question. (After all, the average person from some targeted group does not only edit articles about that group.) So if someone is engaged in concerted hate speech, the proper remedy will usually be an indefinite block or siteban.
Any editor who is a Rajput, or might be perceived as a Rajput by others, has good reason to fear interacting with Adamantine without some indication that something has changed since the two times that Adamantine targeted editors based on that perceived caste affiliation.But to loop back, yes, if that issue can be resolved, then I think the appropriate scope here would probably be Indian caste history; I would also be inclined to impose a 1-way IBAN if Ratnahastin wanted one. — Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 11:23, 18 November 2025 (UTC)- I just want to clarify that I have never hated anyone based on caste or any other factor. But I did WP:Cast aspersions by suggesting that the editor favored a particular caste,[1] or that they favored a caste because of their likely association with it.[2] Both of these comments were completely wrong.
- I have acknowledged my mistakes and apologised for them.[3] So I have no doubt that I was at fault. The rest is already explained in my block request. Adamantine123 (talk) 20:10, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
- An unblock conditional on WP:GS/CASTE, rather than WP:CT/SA, topic-ban may be worth a try but I would like to see some clarity from Adamantine on what topic-areas they would like to edit if they were unblocked. I ask because they mentioned “Indian politics” in their unblock request but the articles they have previously edited in that area (eg, Luv-Kush equation, Lalu Prasad Yadav, Backward Caste movement in Bihar and arguably Politics of Bihar) are so entwined with caste that a caste TBAN would IMO prevent them from touching those. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 07:06, 19 November 2025 (UTC)
- I will create and edit biographies of Indian politicians and will, of course, stay away from caste-related details. I will also avoid editing the types of articles you mentioned. Adamantine123 (talk) 09:58, 19 November 2025 (UTC)
- Oh dear, I just realized why Yamla hasn’t responded to my ping; they’re away on holiday until November 26. Not sure what to do. Might could we come to an agreement here without him, or should we just wait, Tamzin and Abe? I’m most inclined to wait (sorry, Adamantine). Bishonen | tålk 11:13, 19 November 2025 (UTC).
- @Bishonen: I’m okay with the answer given above. I won’t be the one to unblock but I don’t object. I’m not sure if there’s a need to wait for Yamla; even for the blocking admin we’re only expected to contact them if “presently available”. But I’ll leave that to you and Abe. I’m taking a few months off from enwiki admin work starting in the very near future, so I probably won’t have more to say on this. — Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 13:33, 19 November 2025 (UTC)
- I would have liked to have had Yamla’s feedback but agree that it is not required. I am okay with Adamantine’s response since the purpose of my question was mainly to make sure that they are aware that a topic-ban from (say) ‘caste and social groups’ would cover not only articles about castes themselves or edits about a subject’s caste but also topics such as “caste politics”. If unblocked, please keep this in mind and ask an admin if in doubt. I will leave it to Bish to make the final call. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 16:31, 19 November 2025 (UTC)
- For the record, no objections (though it does appear they violated that narrower topic ban). —Yamla (talk) 12:15, 26 November 2025 (UTC)
- [4] This isn’t really a topic violation, as I didn’t edit any details about or related to caste in the article. The title of the news article happens to mention caste, but I didn’t use it to add any caste-related details.” Thanks.Adamantine123 (talk) 14:04, 26 November 2025 (UTC)
- For the record, no objections (though it does appear they violated that narrower topic ban). —Yamla (talk) 12:15, 26 November 2025 (UTC)
- I would have liked to have had Yamla’s feedback but agree that it is not required. I am okay with Adamantine’s response since the purpose of my question was mainly to make sure that they are aware that a topic-ban from (say) ‘caste and social groups’ would cover not only articles about castes themselves or edits about a subject’s caste but also topics such as “caste politics”. If unblocked, please keep this in mind and ask an admin if in doubt. I will leave it to Bish to make the final call. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 16:31, 19 November 2025 (UTC)
- @Bishonen: I’m okay with the answer given above. I won’t be the one to unblock but I don’t object. I’m not sure if there’s a need to wait for Yamla; even for the blocking admin we’re only expected to contact them if “presently available”. But I’ll leave that to you and Abe. I’m taking a few months off from enwiki admin work starting in the very near future, so I probably won’t have more to say on this. — Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 13:33, 19 November 2025 (UTC)
Thank you very much, both Abe and Tamzin. I have unblocked Adamantine with the following condition, which I also put a shorter version of into the block log (it has limited space): Adamantine123’s block is converted to an indefinite topic ban from caste and social groups. Adamantine, please look up WP:TBAN and read it carefully, and please note that the ban covers not only articles about castes themselves or edits about a subject’s caste but also topics such as “caste politics”. Be sure to ask an admin if in doubt. The ban may be appealed after no less than six months at either WP:AE or WP:AN. Bishonen | tålk 19:06, 19 November 2025 (UTC).
- Thanks, will be very careful from now onwards with my edits and will refrain from editing in those area. Adamantine123 (talk) 00:59, 20 November 2025 (UTC)
Hi Adamantine123. Thank you for your work on Deepak Prakash. Another editor, Pasados, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:
Good start! but you can expand it with reliable sources.
To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Pasados}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)
Pasados (talk) 16:49, 20 November 2025 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Ramsewak Singh Kushwaha, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Gopalganj district.
(Opt-out instructions.) —DPL bot (talk) 07:52, 22 November 2025 (UTC)
Please note that this edit is a violation of your caste topic ban as it references the Brahmin caste of his wife. THEZDRX (User) | (Contact) 11:42, 25 November 2025 (UTC)
- This isn’t really a topic violation, as I didn’t edit any details about or related to caste in the article. The title of the news article happens to mention caste, but I didn’t use it to add any caste-related details.” Thanks Adamantine123 (talk) 13:58, 26 November 2025 (UTC)
-
- It was a topic ban violation. Don’t do it again. —Yamla (talk) 14:06, 26 November 2025 (UTC)
